Monday, July 31, 2006

There is an aspect to the Israeli actions in Lebanon that has seemed to cruise under the radar in much of the network coverage. Over at Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum passes along mid-east expert Juan Cole's assessment of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's weighing in on the combat.

Cole's basic point is that the U.S. and British forces in Iraq depend on the acceptance of the Shiite community in the South. Sistani's threat of "dire consequences" would smartly be interpreted as a decline in Shiite cooperation (or at least non-aggression). Given the current difficulties with a relatively passive community, the potential dangers of a hostile Shiite community could end any hope of U.S.-led progress. The ability (much talked about on the blogs, but rarely in the news) to shut down the U.S.'s supply route through the South would completely change the game.

That said, Iraqis on all sides have sometimes seen a continued U.S. presence as in their interest. Driving out U.S. forces, or at least hindering their ability to act by forcing them to hunker down in their easily re-supplied megabases, may not be seen as a step in the right direction, and may even invite more direct action from the U.S. forces.

Monday, July 24, 2006

The Washington Post has come up with a list of topics to analyze the upcoming mid-term elections. The Bellwheaters, it's called.

The bellwethers, as defined here, are not simply a collection of competitive races: They are the contests that illuminate in especially vivid fashion the currents shaping a potentially historic year.

It's a collection of the expected issues: The war in Iraq, Bush's popularity, Echoes of Abramoff, the pocketbook, etc. So far it mostly sums up where selected races stand via the a particular issue, but make no major projections. For example, under ballot initiatives they highlight the effect the stem cell initiative will have in Missouri's Senate race, but list it as a toss-up. A Post-Dispatch poll showed that Missouri voters favor protecting stem cells 62% to 35%.

The stem cell issue crosses traditional political boundaries. The GOTV potential on the right will likely be muted by those who straddle the pro-life/pro-stem cell line. How many of them will actually come out to vote is an issue as well. A majority of Republicans oppose stem cell research (58% to 40%), but if those 40% decide to stay home, or vote in favor of stem-cell research and leave the Senate race blank, McCaskill could get the margin she needs.

Add in the fact that 83% of Democrats and 64% of independents favor the research and it is hard to see Republicans gaining enough traction on the issue.

The Washington Post has come up with a list of topics to analyze the upcoming mid-term elections. The Bellwheaters, it's called.

The bellwethers, as defined here, are not simply a collection of competitive races: They are the contests that illuminate in especially vivid fashion the currents shaping a potentially historic year.

It's a collection of the expected issues: The war in Iraq, Bush's popularity, Echoes of Abramoff, the pocketbook, etc. So far it mostly sums up where selected races stand via the a particular issue, but make no major projections. For example, under ballot initiatives they highlight the effect the stem cell initiative will have in Missouri's Senate race, but list it as a toss-up. A Post-Dispatch poll showed that Missouri voters favor protecting stem cells 62% to 35%.

The stem cell issue crosses traditional political boundaries. The GOTV potential on the right will likely be muted by those who straddle the pro-life/pro-stem cell line. How many of them will actually come out to vote is an issue as well. A majority of Republicans oppose stem cell research (58% to 40%), but if those 40% decide to stay home, or vote in favor of stem-cell research and leave the Senate race blank, McCaskill could get the margin she needs.

Add in the fact that 83% of Democrats and 64% of independents favor the research and it is hard to see Republicans gaining enough traction on the issue.

The Washington Poststory on the deal negotiated by Specter points out that the bill gives the President the option of submitting his programs to the court, it does not require it.

It also notes that Specter agreed to remove a portion of the FISA law that states it has exclusive jurisdiction in the area of surveillance. Opponents of the President's NSA surveillance have argued that the administration is wrong to assert the President has the inherent constitutional authority, neither are the programs authorized by the "Use of Force" resolution passed in the days after September 11th. If the agreement is approved, it would appear to undercut the original intent of the FISA law.

The agreement has been reported as a concession on Bush's part, yet by restricting FISA jurisdiction and making approval by FISA an optional step, it would seem to actually expand the President's ability to conduct surveillance.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

President Bush described his current foreign policy quite eloquently...

“Unless a president sets his own priorities, his priorities will be set by others — by adversaries, or the crisis of the moment, live on CNN. American policy can become random and reactive — untethered to the interests of our country.”

...almost seven years ago.

Ivo Daalder has the rundown on the President's new approach to foreign policy.